“He’s more involved than anyone thought.” Tusk attacks the president again and gets an immediate response

Prime Minister Donald Tusk has launched another attack on President Karol Nawrocki. The reason: the head of state has vetoed the cryptocurrency bill for the third time. “He’s probably more involved in this than anyone thought,” Tusk wrote, triggering a wave of critical reactions online.

Third veto of the cryptocurrency bill

President Nawrocki has vetoed, for the third time, legislation intended to regulate Poland’s crypto-asset market. He explained that the latest version of the bill once again ignored nearly all of the concerns raised by the Presidential Chancellery during the legislative process.

“The government is obsessively fighting a so-called ‘crypto shadow’ instead of actually solving the problem. This shows that the intentions are unfortunately not pure. The goal is to keep talking about problems with crypto-assets rather than genuinely addressing them,”

President Nawrocki said in a video posted on social media platform X.

The president also stressed that repeating the same arguments over and over does not improve the quality of legislation.

“Just as a lie does not become the truth when repeated a hundred times, bad law does not become good law simply because it is passed a hundred times.”

Nawrocki pointed out that he had already submitted his own bill regulating the crypto-asset market. According to him, it is largely consistent with the government’s proposal but includes modifications designed to improve the protection of citizens against crimes linked to the sector.

The president argued that his proposal eliminates the most serious flaws in the government’s legislation.

“Only political stubbornness and the weakness of the current government in this area explain its hostility toward the presidential proposal and the responsible regulation of this market,”

he added.

Nawrocki emphasized that he is not opposed to introducing regulations for the cryptocurrency industry. However, he argued that any new rules must be effective and must not harm Polish entrepreneurs.

He also declared that he would be prepared to sign the legislation once the identified shortcomings were corrected.

“The bill will receive my signature if it is improved.”

Donald Tusk’s attack on the president

Prime Minister Tusk responded to the veto in a social media post. Rather than addressing the concerns raised by Nawrocki, the prime minister suggested that the president might have deeper ties to the issue than publicly acknowledged.

“It sounds unbelievable, but the president has once again vetoed the cryptocurrency bill. He’s probably more involved in this than anyone thought,”

Tusk wrote.

Wave of criticism

The prime minister’s remarks prompted numerous critical responses online. Among the comments cited were:

  • “It sounds unbelievable, but the prime minister has once again placed a legislative dud on the president’s desk. He’s probably more incompetent than anyone thought.”
  • “The same bill for the third time. The government’s obligation to its backers must be more serious than anyone imagined.”
  • “Submit the same absurd proposal for a fourth time—a project criticized from right to left by virtually everyone familiar with the issue. Maybe the fourth attempt will work.”
  • “The president is being consistent and defending common sense in politics. Regulation of the cryptocurrency market is necessary, but the overregulation proposed by your government is obviously harmful.”
  • “It seems to me that a much bigger problem for you is the involvement of Roman Giertych and his boss—you. Are you planning to jail all journalists? It’s already clear that nobody is being intimidated by your actions.”
  • “I have a brilliant idea: submit exactly the same bill once again. The fourth time, he’ll surely sign it.”

The latest exchange marks another chapter in the ongoing dispute between the government and the president over the shape of cryptocurrency regulation in Poland, with both sides accusing each other of acting for political rather than substantive reasons.

More in section

3,192FansLike
406FollowersFollow
2,001FollowersFollow

Latest